Kirsty Hollings had been working at the Ipswich branch of Warren James in Tower Ramparts when the offences took place.

The 26-year-old admitted theft by employee between January 15 and April 15 last year when she appeared before Ipswich magistrates.

The court was told that some years ago Hollings’ fiance’s mother had committed suicide, which place a great strain on her partner.

As a result he had suffered health problems and lost his job, leaving Hollings as the only wage earner.

Consequently the couple had struggled to make ends meet and rather than seek help from her parents Hollings decided to take money from her employer with the intention of paying it back when she was able to do so.

Prosecutor Tess Mann told magistrates Warren James had noticed there was high amount of stock missing from the Ipswich store.

An investigation discovered there were a large number of receipts issued by Hollings for goods that had gone missing.

Hollings worked between the company’s Ipswich and Norwich stores.

Mrs Mann said when Hollings was in Ipswich she would remove an item of jewellery, then when working in Norwich she would write a receipt for its return.

The customer name given would be fictitious.

Hollings would falsify the information and a manager’s signature.

She admitted the thefts during a disciplinary process following the investigation by which time she had been promoted to a manager’s position.

The court was told the total amount of money taken was £2,396 although Hollings, of Dakin Street, Norwich, said part of that amount was in relation to a genuine transaction involving her grandmother.

However, Hollings’ mother had taken out a loan of £6,000 to give to Warren James which, it was alleged in court, the company said would bring the matter to a conclusion.

Magistrates sentenced Hollings to a one-year community order with 80 hours’ unpaid work.

She was also told to pay costs of £85 and £60 to the victims’ fund.

Currently trending

The star has since added disclaimers not to take responsibilities for comments, and very mild comments are being rejected. I said the woman should have received a custodial sentence as not only was this theft but also fraud (faking signature, false receipts...) - Why was this refused to be posted?